mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Slurs
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Slurs

b. 379-380

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

No slurs in A

Slurs in GE1 (→FE)

Slur in EE & GE2
..

It is difficult to assume that the slurs in the L.H. appearing in GE1 (→FE) could have been added in this form by Chopin – they are contrary to the authentic slur in the R.H., whereas their range overlaps with the beams of the group of quavers. Therefore, it is most probably a revision, which also questions the authenticity of the slurs added in GE1 in the previous two bars. The revisers of EE and GE2 replaced them with a two-bar slur modelled after the slur of the R.H.; it specifies the notation, yet it does not follow from the notation of A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 381-385

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

No slur in A (→GE1→FE)

Slur to bar 384 in EE

Slur to bar 385 in GE2
..

The slurs in the L.H., added in EE and GE2 and being a repetition of a respective slur in the R.H., were certainly performed by the revisers. However, their compliance with Chopin's intention is not entirely excluded – see bars 376-377 and 384-385 as well as 385-387 and 387-388.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 384-385

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Slurs in A

Slurs in GE

Slurs in FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we give the slurs of A, which do not raise any doubts concerning both the sources and music. However, the version of GE may be considered at least to be equal:

  • an inaccuracy consisting in engraving a slur incompatible with the division into bars or groups is something practically unusual in GE1, which, in spite of the lack of visible traces of corrections, makes Chopin's proofreading highly likely. The proofreading of the slurs can also be indicated by the slurring of FE (→EE), perhaps reproducing the state of GE1 from before the last phase of proofreading;
  • Chopin wrote such a system of slurs in analogous bars 40-41.

The arguments for the adoption of the notation of A are as follows:

  • a legible, unequivocal notation;
  • no dynamic markings in these bars, emphasising the beginning of the ascending passage – cf.   in bars 40-41. A shorter slur of A suggests that a new thought begins in bar 385, which compensates this deficiency to a certain extent.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections of GE

b. 385-387

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

No slur in A (→GE1→FE)

Slur in EE

Slur in GE2
..

The slur of the L.H., being a repetition of a respective slur in the R.H., is certainly an addition of the revision of EE and GE2. In the case of GE2, in which the slur in the R.H. has the same range as in A, the compliance of this addition with Chopin's intention is not entirely excluded – see bars 376-377.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 386-387

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Slur to bar 387 in A & GE2

Shorter slur in GE1 (→FE→EE)
..

Shortened slurs are a typical inaccuracy of the engraver of GE1 (→FE→EE), corrected on the basis of A in GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions